Arabic Varieties: Far and Wide Proceedings of the 11th International

Conference of AIDA – Bucharest, 2015

This volume has been accomplished with the support of

Arabic Varieties: Far and Wide

Proceedings of the 11thInternational Conference of AIDA – Bucharest, 2015

EDITORS

George Grigore Gabriel Bițună

2016

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naționale a României Arabic varieties – Far and wide : proceedings of the 11th International Conference of AIDA – Bucharest, 2015 / ed.: George Grigore, Gabriel Bițună. – București : Editura Universității din București, 2016 ISBN 978-606-16-0709-9 I. International Conference of AIDA II. Grigore, George (ed.) III. Bițună, Gabriel (ed.) 811.411.21

Şos. Panduri nr. 90-92,

050663 Bucureşti ROMÂNIA

Tel./Fax: +40 214102384 E-mail: editura.unibuc@gmail.com

Web: http://editura-unibuc.ro Centru de vânzare:

Bd. Regina Elisabeta nr. 4-12, 030018 Bucureşti – ROMÂNIA

Tel. +40 213053703 Tipografia EUB:

Bd. Iuliu Maniu nr. 1-3 061071 Bucuresti – ROMÂNIA

Tel./Fax: +40 213152510 DTP & Graphic (coordinator): Emeline-Daniela Avram DTP & Graphic: Gabriel Bițună Cover photo: AIDA 11 Bucharest participants in front of the venue, Casa Universitarilor (The Academics’ House), 28th of May 2015 Back cover: AIDA logo, by designer Aluna Ille (Source: from the editors’ archive – all photo copyright responsibility falls to the editors)

CONTENTS

Foreword........................................................................................................................................... 9 Massimo Bevacqua (1973 - 2015).................................................................................................... 11 Yaşar Acat. أجاتیاشار دراسة مقارنة في العناصر المشتركة في اللھجات العربیة األناضولیة المعاصرة . …………..……… 13 Jordi Aguadé. The Arabic Dialect of Tangier Across a Century..................................................... 21 Faruk Akkuş. The Arabic Dialect of Mutki-Sason Areas................................................................ 29 Saif Abdulwahed Jewad Alabaeeji. Aspects of Grammatical Agreement in Iraqi Arabic Relative Clauses: a Descriptive Approach......................................................................................................

41

Yousuf B. Albader. Quadriliteral Verbs in Kuwaiti Arabic............................................................ 53 Muntasir Fayez Al-Hamad. تأثیر ازدواجیة اللسان على وارثي اللغة العربیة من متعلمیھا لغةً أجنبیة . الحمدمنتصر فایز …. 65 Jules Arsenne. Preliminary Results on the Arabic Spoken in Jnanate, Northern Morocco............ 73 Lucia Avallone. Spelling Variants in Written Egyptian Arabic, a Study on Literary Texts............. 79 Andrei A. Avram. On the Developmental Stage of Gulf Pidgin Arabic.......................................... 87 Montserrat Benitez Fernandez. Notes sur le sociolecte des jeunes d’Ouezzane (Nord du Maroc)…... 99 Najah Benmoftah; Christophe Pereira. Des connecteurs de cause en arabe de Tripoli (Libye)… 107 Said Bennis. Opérationnalisation du paradigme de la diversité au Maroc : vers une territorialisation linguistique et culturelle........................................................................................

119

Marwa Benshenshin. Les interrogatifs šən, šənu et šəni dans le parler arabe de Tripoli (Libye).. 127 Simone Bettega. Linguistic Self-Representation in a Popular Omani Cartoon: Towards the Rise of a National Standard?....................................................................................................................

137

Gabriel Bițună. The Spoken Arabic of Siirt: Between Progress and Decay.................................... 147 Aziza Boucherit. Reference and Spatial Orientation in “Ordinary Discourses”. hna vs. hnak, təmm and l-hīh in Algerian Arabic...................................................................................................

155

Dominique Caubet. The Dialect of Msek – Beni Itteft (Al Hoceima), on the Borders with Berber – Revisited in 2014............................................................................................................................

163

Letizia Cerqueglini. Etymology, Culture And Grammaticalisation: a Semantic Exploration of the Front/Back Axis in Traditional Negev Arabic.............................................................................

175

Ines Dallaji; Ines Gabsi. Overabundance in the Arabic Dialect of Tunis: a Diachronic Study of Plural Formation..............................................................................................................................

185

Francesco De Angelis. The Egyptian Dialect for a Democratic Form of Literature: Considerations for a Modern Language Policy................................................................................

193

Emanuela De Blasio. A Linguistic Study About Syrian Rap Songs.................................................. 203 Nabila El Hadj Said. Innovation of New Words Borrowed from French into the Algerian Dialect by Young Adults....................................................................................................................

211

Moha Ennaji. Teaching and Learning Arabic as a Foreign Language........................................... 217 Paule Fahmé-Thiéry. L’arabe dialectal aleppin dans le récit de voyage de Hanna Dyâb………. 223 Khalid Mohamed Farah. Words of Old Semitic Origins in Sudanese Colloquial Arabic………... 231 Ioana Feodorov. Le mélange terminologique comme trait spécifique au moyen arabe dans le Journal de voyage de Paul d’Alep (1652-1659) ...............................................................................

237

Daniela Rodica Firănescu. Ḥāšā-ki yā bintī! On Alethic and Deontic Modalities in Spoken Arabic from Syria..............................................................................................................................

251

George Grigore. Expressing Certainty and Uncertainty in Baghdadi Arabic................................. 259 Elisabeth Grünbichler. Linguistic Remarks on the Dialect of al-Buraymi, Oman.......................... 267 Jairo Guerrero. A Phonetical Sketch of the Arabic Dialect Spoken in Oran (North-Western Algeria). 273 Evgeniya Gutova. Baby Talk in the Maghreb.................................................................................. 281 Juma’a Jidda Hassan. Interjections: Cases of Linguistic Borrowing in Nigerian (Shuwa) Arabic Code Switching..................................................................................................................................

291

Qasim Hassan. Concerning Some Negative Markers in South Iraqi Arabic................................... 301 Uri Horesh. Four Types of Phonological Lenition in Palestinian Arabic....................................... 307 Bohdan Horvat. Voices and Registers in the [Dialect] Poetry of Fuad Haddad............................. 315 Ștefan Ionete. Some Features of Arabic Spoken in Hasköy............................................................. 323 Safa Abou Chahla Jubran; Felipe Benjamin Francisco فرانسیسكوفیلیب بنجامین ؛جبرانصفاء أبو شھال .

روایة "تصطفل مریل ستریب" لرشید الضعیففي ترجمة ما ورد باللھجة اللبنانیة في ................................................. 331

Najla Kalach. Ḥomṣ Arabic: First Issues......................................................................................... 337 Maciej Klimiuk. Third Person Masculine Singular Pronominal Suffix -Hne (-Hni) in Syrian Arabic Dialects and its Hypothetical Origins...................................................................................

345

Maarten Kossmann. Yes/No Interrogatives in Moroccan Dutch..................................................... 351 Cristina La Rosa. Le relateur -Vn en arabe de Sicile : exemples et remarques linguistiques……. 359 Jérôme Lentin. Sur un type de proposition circonstancielle syndétique dans les dialectes arabes. 369 Diana Lixandru. Dialy - Status Constructus or a New Grammar of the Moroccan Body………... 377 Marcin Michalski. Spelling Moroccan Arabic in Arabic Script: the Case of Literary Texts…….. 385 Karlheinz Moerth; Daniel Schopper; Omar Siam. Towards a Diatopic Dictionary of Spoken Arabic Varieties: Challenges in Compiling the VICAV Dictionaries…………………………...…

395

Amina Naciri-Azzouz. Les variétés arabes de Ghomara ? s-saḥǝl vs. ǝǧ-ǧbǝl (la côte vs. la montagne)………………………………………………………………………………………

405

Shuichiro Nakao. More on Early East African Pidgin Arabic......................................................... 413 Aldo Nicosia. Le Petit Prince in Algerian Arabic: a Lexical Perspective........................................ 421 Ahmed Salem Ould Mohamed Baba. Le lexique de l’Aẓawān. Une approche ethnolinguistique. 431 Victor Pak. Some Thoughts About Description and Teaching of Arabic Dialects........................... 439 Yulia Petrova. A Case of Colloquialization of the Text: the Kyiv Manuscript of “The Travels of Macarius” ........................................................................................................................................

445

Tornike Pharseghashvili. Linguistic Archaeology of Peripheral Arabic........................................ 453 Stephan Procházka; Ismail Batan. The Functions of Active Participles in Šāwi Bedouin Dialects….. 457 Judith Rosenhouse; Sara Brand. Arabic-Hebrew Code-Switching in the Spontaneous Speech of Israeli Arab Students.........................................................................................................................

467

Lucie San Geroteo. Etude de quelques réalisations de l’arabe moyen syrien dans sîrat al-Zîr Sâlim... 475

Mehmet Șayır األمثال في لھجة ماردین العربیة .شایر محمد ………………………………………………… 485 Apollon Silagadze; Nino Ejibadze. On Arabic (Egyptian) Fiction Created in the Vernacular….. 493 Tatiana Smyslova (Savvateeva). Syntax and Semantics of Proverbs-Dialogues in Egyptian Arabic… 497 Lameen Souag. From Existential to Indefinite Determiner: Kaš in Algerian Arabic…………..… 505 Laura Andreea Sterian. Topicalization in Baghdadi Arabic Questions………………………...… 515 Mehmet Hakkı Suçin العربیة وطالبھا من تدریس اللھجات العربیة على مواقف أساتذة اللغة . صوتشینمحمد حقي .........................................................................................................................المستوى الجامعي في تركیا

521

Catherine Taine-Cheikh. baˁd(a) dans les dialectes arabes: glissements sémantiques et phénomènes de transcatégorisation..................................................................................................

531

Faruk Toprak. العربیةدراسة عن كلمات دخیلة في لھجة سعرد .توبراقفاروق ................................................... 541 Zviadi Tskhvediani. al-öišbā÷ in Ancient and Modern Arabic Dialects........................................... 545 Islam Youssef. Epenthesis, Assimilation, and Opacity in Baghdadi Arabic.................................... 549 Liesbeth Zack. Nineteenth-Century Cairo Arabic as Described by Qadrī and Naḫla…………… 557 Magdalena Zawrotna. The Use of Taboo – Related Words in Egyptian Arabic a Sociolinguistic Approach to (Im)Politeness...............................................................................................................

569

Karima Ziamari; Alexandrine Barontini. Les liaisons dangereuses : médias sociaux et parlers jeunes au Maroc. Le cas de Bouzebbal.............................................................................................

579

THE ARABIC DIALECT OF MUTKI-SASON AREAS

FARUK AKKUŞ

Yale University

Abstract: This paper presents a range of linguistic data from an Anatolian Arabic dialect spoken in Mutki-Sason areas, and focuses particularly on the verbal morphology. The study shows that Sason Arabic displays various properties that are distinct from other varieties of Arabic and concludes that at least some of these properties, such as light verb construction or marking of definiteness, might be the result of contact with surrounding languages like Turkish and Kurdish. In this respect, it provides instances of syntactic change due to contact along with change in the phonological and morphological domains. The paper also discusses various phenomena in the dialect in comparison with other Anatolian dialects in order to show the commonalities among the dialects and the aspects they show variations. Keywords: Sason-Mutki Arabic, copula, past marker, language contact.

Introduction Sason Arabic is one of the many Arabic varieties spoken in Anatolia. These dialects are part of the larger Mesopotamian dialect area, in other words they can be considered as a continuation of the Iraqi Arabic dialects. Jastrow (1978, 2006a, b) classifies the dialect in the Sason area as a member of Kozluk-Sason-Muş group. Based on Blanc’s (1964) seminal book Communal Dialects in Baghdad, Anatolian Arabic is categorized as qəltu-dialect.

Starting with a geographical survey of Arabic dialects spoken in Turkey, Anatolian qəltu-dialects are conventionally divided into four major groups (Jastrow 2006): 1. i) Mardin group ii) Siirt group iii) Diyarbakır group iv) Kozluk-Sason-Muş group

The linguistic data in this paper come from the village of Kuzzang in the province of Mutki, Bitlis and the village of Purşang, Batman. The absence of official literacy in Arabic, and hence the absence of diglossia, and the strong influence from the surrounding languages, such as Turkish (the official language of Turkey), Kurdish and Zazaki (Indo-Iranian) and Armenian (spoken by Sason speakers of Armenian origin) are the two primary factors that have shaped Sason Arabic linguistically and sociologically. It is significant to note that Sason speakers are usually multilingual, speaking some of the mentioned languages.

Jastrow (2006a) notes that all the Arabic dialects spoken between Diyarbakir and Urfa are now history and the situation can be extended the Kozluk-Sason-Muş dialects as well, which are situated in a forbidding mountain range which extends from Siirt northwards to the plain of Muş. Furthermore, Jastrow says that “most of the dialects still existing are spoken by Muslim peasants in small villages and hamlets which, intriguingly, bear Armenian names, but no Armenians survive in the area”. This article clearly shows that there are still few Armenian families in the region, especially in Purşang, some of whom have migrated to Istanbul, mostly to the Samatya neighborhood.

FARUK AKKUŞ 30

Phonology Sason Arabic has the inventory of consonant phonemes shown in Table 1.1

Table 1

Consonant Inventory of Sason Arabic

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

plosive p t c k q b d ɡ

fricative f s š x h v d̠ z ž ġ

affricate č ǰ

nasal m n approximant w y

liquid l ɫ vibrant r

(1) bilabial, (2) labiodental, (3) interdental, (4) alveolar, (5) post-alveolar, (6) palatal, (7) velar, (8) uvular, (9) glottal.

A number of new phonemes have been introduced into Sason Arabic via loanwords from

Kurdish, Zazaki, Turkish and Aramaic. It should be noted that identical or very similar phonemes are found in other Arabic qəltu-dialects (Jastrow 2006a, Talay 2001):

i. The voiceless bilabial stop /p/ is a stable phoneme in the dialect. The other phonemes are the voiceless affricate /č/, the labiodentals fricative /v/, and the voiced velar stop /g/.

2. parda ‘curtain’ [ < Turkish perde] parča ‘piece’ [ < Turkish parča] čāx ‘time, moment’ [ < Kurdish čāx] vade ‘term to maturity’ [ < Turkish vade] mazgūn ‘sickle’ [ < Aramaic magzūnā, cf. Turoyo magzūno]

Note that the word mazgūn ‘sickle’ has undergone metathesis in Sason Arabic, unlike its

realization in Kinderib where it preserved the original order of word-medial consonants magzūn.

ii. The interdental fricatives have been shifted to the sibilants, while they have been retained in some other Anatolian dialects, e.g. the Mardin group dialects (Jastrow 2006a). In Tillo and Siirt dialects, on the other hand, they have been shifted into labiodentals fricatives. This is one of the sound changes that illustrate the differences in the various subgroups of Anatolian qəltu-dialects.

3. Mardin dialect Sason Tillo/Siirt d̠ahab ‘gold’ zahab vahab bayd̠ ‘egg’ bēza bayṿ axad̠ ‘he took’ aġaz axav d̠əhr ‘afternoon’ zēr ṿəhor

However, in the plural marker, the voiced the voiced fricative is preserved in the speech of some speakers; for instance, both potād and potād̠ ‘clothes’ are available in the language. In other qəltu-dialects, the voiceless stop /t/ is used, e.g. maqbaṛāt ‘cemeteries’ in Azəx (Wittrich 2001), karrāt ‘times’ in Tillo (Lahdo 2009).

1 The format of the tables draws from Jastrow 2006a, whose overall influence on the text will be clear to the reader.

THE ARABIC DIALECT OF MUTKI-SASON AREAS 31

iii. The glottal fricative /h/ has disappeared in words where it is followed by the vibrant /r/. This process is followed by the compensatory lengthening of the vowel.

4. zēr < d̠əhər ‘noon’ šār < šahər ‘month’ cf. šahr Old Arabic, šaʿr Hasköy Arabic

In some other cases, the loss of /h/ or the Old Arabic /ḥ/ is not dependent on the presence of /r/. 5. nasáʿu ‘he forgot it’ in Hasköy > nasou naḥna ‘we’ > naʿna > nāna aġaznáḥu ‘we took it’ in Hasköy > aġaznou taḥt ‘under’ in Daragözü > tāt

iv. The uvular stop /q/ has been preserved like most other dialects, but the emphatic consonants and the glottal stop are not encountered in Sason.

6. qāl ‘he said’ aqla ‘her mind’ madar < *maṭar ‘rain’ zarab < *ẓarab ‘he shot’ sāleb ‘fox’ cf. saʾləb (Talay 2001)

However, similar to what is observed in Hasköy dialect (Talay 2001), in some contexts, the underlying /q/ shifts to x ~ ġ. Similarly, the underlying velar fricative /x/ is voiced and becomes ġ. Consider the following. 7. q > ġ: baġa ‘he stayed’ baġra ‘cow’ cf. baq̱ṛa in Daragözü q > x: ixtəla ‘he will kill her’ mōtix ‘I cannot’ cf. mōṭiq in Daragözü x > ġ: aġaz ‘he took’

v. The sequence of glide+consonant in word-medial position is disfavored in the dialect. This

sequence is usually resolved through the deletion of the glide and lengthening of the preceding vowel (in some cases the quality of the vowel changes, as in the alternation between a ~ ī in the word ‘white’).

8. beyḍa > bēza ‘egg’ dawla > dōle ‘state’ bayza (f.sg. Talay 2001: 74) > bīz ‘white’ cf. ḅayṿa (f.sg., Tillo Arabic) laymūn (Tillo Arabic) > lāmūn ‘lemon, citrus fruit’ īdayni ‘my hands’ Daragözü (Jastrow 1973: 95) > idēni

In the context of vowels, the mid-long vowels have been introduced into the inventory via loanwords from Turkish and Kurdish, e.g. xōrt ‘young man’ [< Kurdish] and tēl ‘wire’ [< Turkish].

Another way mid-long vowels entered the lexicon is through the process imāla. When the imāla has been triggered by a short [i], this vowel may have subsequently been lost, e.g. klēb ‘dogs’ which is derived from the Old Arabic plural kilāb. 9. Imāla (* ā > ē) in Sason Arabic

Old Arabic Sason dakakīn > dəkēkīn ‘shops’ kilāb > kəlēb ‘dogs’ The Old Arabic diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/ have been preserved in word-final position in Sason

Arabic, as in beyt ‘house’, dawz ‘walnut’. However, diphthongs have been monophthongized in some words, such as fōġ ‘above’ < fōq [in Mardin, Jastrow 2006a] < fowq. Note also the above discussed alternation between q ~ x. Other examples of monophthongization are ēn ‘eye’ < OA ʿayn, ōm ‘day’ < OA yawm.

FARUK AKKUŞ 32

Sason Arabic has a larger inventory of short vowels compared to other Anatolian Arabic dialects, which have a system of two vowel system, [ə] and [a] (Jastrow 2006a). Table 2 illustrates the short vowels in Sason Arabic:

Table 2 Short vowels in Sason

i u e ə o a

Unlike Anatolian Arabic, where the unconditioned of the Old Arabic short vowels /i/ and /u/ led

to /ə/, Sason has preserved the short high front vowel, e.g. hēdi ‘slowly’, nihane ‘here’. The examples mādar ‘he didn’t call’ and madar ‘rain’ show a minimal pair based on the length of the [a] vowel. The other pair hāmar ‘red’ and hamār ‘donkey’ stresses the role of length in leading to meaning differences.

The Old Arabic /i/ has shifted to /ə/ in the example bənt ‘girl’, similarly the [u] vowel of Old Arabic turned into [a] in the word axt ‘sister’ < Old Arabic bint, uxt. The examples wane ‘there’, nihane ‘here’, le ‘that’, sāre ‘she became’ show that the short vowel [e] is part of the inventory, and not an allophone of some sort. The short vowel [o] is found in words like boš ‘a lot’, xasalo ‘they washed’, ǰom ‘barn’, zoqamra ‘moon’. The Old Arabic [u] and [a] have been generally preserved, e.g. ǰum ‘star’, šušumār ‘centipede’, fade ‘she opened’.

Morphology Regarding personal pronouns, the gender distinction between 2nd and 3rd person plural has been lost, as in other Anatolian Arabic. Table 3 shows the independent personal pronouns in Sason Arabic, along with Mardin (Jastrow 2006a) and Daragözü (a Kozluk group dialect, Jastrow 1973, 2006a) and the other dialect Bo Isaksson (2005) documented in a village northwest of Sason, Xalīle.

Table 3

Independent Personal Pronouns

Sason Xalīle Daragözü Mardin 3rd sg. masc. iyu uww hīyu hūwe 3rd sg. fem. iya iyye hīya hīya

3rd pl. iyen, ənnen ənn hīyən hənne 2nd sg. masc. ənt int, ənta ənt ənta 2nd sg. fem. ənte inte ənte ənti

2nd pl. ənto əntu, əntən ənto ənten 1st sg. ina, īna īna nā ana 1st pl. nāna nəḥne naḥne nəḥne

In Sason, the initial /h/ in 3rd person forms has disappeared, in this respect it patterns with Xalīle,

however the difference between the two dialects is readily noticeable. Regarding the development of personal pronouns, I suggest that the expected form hīye has become hīya by analogy to the 3rd pers. sg. fem. -a, following Jastrow’s (2006a) account for Daragözü. Xalīle has preserved the vowel e, but has taken on the geminate form of the consonant. The forms iyu and iyen in turn are back formations from īya, by attaching to a basis īy- the respective pronominal suffixes -u and -en. The 2nd person forms ənte and ənto acquired their final vowel to the analogy with the inflected verb.

THE ARABIC DIALECT OF MUTKI-SASON AREAS 33

The following are the demonstrative pronouns in Sason Arabic. Note that unlike the Hasköy dialect (Talay 2001), the gender distinction has been lost in plural forms. Near deixis Remote deixis 10. sg. m. ala aya, ay f. ali ayi pl. m./f. alu ayu

In Xalīle, in Hasköy and the Aġde dialects (Jastrow 1978), the consonant in the singular forms is z, e.g. āza (m), āzi (f) for near deixis, and āzu for common plural. In remote deixis, the masculine form is reported as ʾāk < āg (cf. Jastrow 1978:108). The shift from k/g > y reflects change in the form of the 2nd sg. masc. pronominal suffix. On the other hand, in Siirt dialects the consonant is v (Jastrow 1978, Lahdo 2009), e.g. äävi in Tillo. The following are some examples to illustrate the demonstrative pronouns in use.

11. ala sabi ‘this boy’ ali bənt ‘this girl’ ay kelp ‘that dog’ ayi māse ‘that table’ alu zəġār ‘these kids’ ayu bənād ‘those girls’

The pronominal suffixes are attached to nouns (to express possession), to verbs (to function as a direct object), and to prepositions. Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the pronominal suffixes after bases ending in a consonant (beyt ‘house’), in ā (faddā ‘he took away’), and -u (axu ‘brother’), respectively.

Table 4

Pronominal suffix I – after C

Sason Hasköy Daragözü Xalīle

beyt ‘house’ bēt ‘house’ bayt ‘house’ 3rd sg. m. bēd-u bēt-u báyt-u -u 3rd sg. f. bēd-a bēt-a báyt-a -a 3rd pl. bēd-en bēt-en báyt-ən ən 2nd sg. m. bēd-ey bēt-ək báyt-ək ək, āk 2nd sg. f. bek-ki bēt-ki bēt-ki -ki 2nd pl. bek-ken bēk-ken bēt-kən -kən 1st sg. bēd-i bēt-i báyt-i -i 1st pl. ben-na bēn-na bēt-na -na, ənay

Note that the diphthong in the word beyt ‘house’ is monophthongized when a suffix is attached.

This process applies across the paradigm in Sason, that is, with both suffixes beginning with a vowel or a consonant. In Daragözü, on the other hand, monophthongization and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (with a change in vowel quality, a > e) occurs only when a consonant initial suffix is attached. Moreover, the voiceless stop /t/ seems to undergo regressive assimilation in Sason and Mardin, e.g. yielding the output /beyt-ki/ > betki > bekki in Sason. This is not a productive rule since in a similar context, assimilation does not take place in the word mawt ‘death’, e.g. /mawt-ki/ > mōtki, not *mōkki.

FARUK AKKUŞ 34

Table 5 Pronominal suffix II – after ā

Sason Mardin

fadda ‘he took away’

waddā ‘he took away’

3rd sg. m. faddou waddā-hu 3rd sg. f. faddā/faddaʿa waddā-ha 3rd pl. fadden waddā-

hən

2nd sg. m. faddey waddā-k 2nd sg. f. faddāki waddā-ki 2nd pl. faddāken waddā-

kən

1st sg. faddāni waddā-ni 1st pl. faddanna waddā-na

Table 6

Pronominal suffix III – after u/ū

Sason Daragözü Hasköy Mardin axu ‘brother’ xū ‘brother’ abu ‘father’ abū ‘father’

3rd sg. m. axū-n xū abū-n abū-hu 3rd sg. f. axū-a xū-a abū-wa abū-wa 3rd pl. axū-en xū-ən abū-wen abū-wən 2nd sg. m. axū-y xū-k abū-k abū-k 2nd sg. f. axū-ki xū-ki abū-ki abū-ki 2nd pl. axū-ken xū-kən abū-ken abū-kən 1st sg. ax-i xū-i abū-y abū-yi 1st pl. axū-na xū-na abū-na abū-na

In Hasköy, Mardin and Daragözü dialects, as in other Anatolian Arabic dialects, the pronominal

suffix for 2nd sg. masc. is -(ə)k, however in Sason it is -ey after a base ending in a consonant, and -y after a vowel. This is observed in the genitive form zəl- as well, e.g. zəlley ‘yours’.

Furthermore, the dialects exhibit a variation with respect to the pronominal suffix realization after a base ending in long or short -u in 1st person sg. form. Sason and Daragözü have the suffix –i as in the word for ‘brother’, while Mardin -yi, and Hasköy -y. Another point worth mentioning is that unlike other qəltu-dialects, Sason and Daragözü dialects allow hiatus, e.g. axūa ‘her brother’, or xūi ‘my brother’, cf. Hasköy abūwa, where the glide breaks up the hiatus. In Xalīle, the quality of the preceding vowel determines the epenthesized glide. 3rd sg. fem. suffix is realized as -wa after -u, e.g. yğibu-wa, but nğib-a, similar to Hasköy and Mardin dialects, whereas the form of 3rd sg. masc. is -yu after -i. This shows that the choice of the glide corresponds with the vowel.

Negation The form of the negative marker depends on the aspect of the verb: mā is used in perfective, e.g. mā-ǰa ‘he did not come’ and mō/mə/mi is used in the imperfective form of the verb. 1st person sg. marker ā- is elided before mō, e.g. mōčči ‘I will not come’. In Xalīle, mā is used before the perfect, and mō before

THE ARABIC DIALECT OF MUTKI-SASON AREAS 35

the imperfect, accordingly with persons other than the 1st sg. as well mō is used, e.g. nəḥne gəze mō nuʾl ‘we do not say so’.

In nominal sentences, negative marker for 3rd sg. masc. is mū/mow, for 3rd sg. fem. mī/mey, e.g. raxue mey ‘she is not sick’ and for 3rd pl. mennen. The form of the negation is mā in other persons. In optative and imperatives, the form lā is used, e.g. lā təči ‘don’t come’.

Sason Arabic uses the existential particle ifī ‘there’ in both existential and possessive constructions, e.g. ifi kelpteyn qəddam bābe ‘there are two dogs in front of the door’, ifənna zəġārteyn ‘we have two children’.

Note that in both existential and possessive constructions, the opposite pattern is observed regarding the form of the negative and the tense reference. Sason exhibits the following negative particles in present and past. In present tense, which is correlated with the imperfective, the form mā is used, while in past mə is preferred. 12. mā-fi ‘There is not’ mə-kī-fi ‘There was not’ or məkfi

Another interesting property is that in possessives the form existential+dative clitic is observed. The paradigm is as follows: 13. ifə-nni kelpma ‘I have a dog’2 ifə-lley … ‘you (m.) have …’ ifə-kki ‘you (f.) have’ ifə-llu ‘he has’ ifə-lla ‘she has’ ifə-nna ‘we have’ ifə-kken ‘you (pl.) have’ ifə-llen ‘they have’

There are two genitive exponents in Sason: (i)zəl-, and lē. Only the former is used with the possessive suffixes. The genitive exponent ḏīl or dīl in other Anatolian dialects, partly due to the phonological rules of the dialect, ḏ has become z, e.g. axu zəkki ‘your brother, brother of yours’, kelp zənna ‘our dog, dog of ours’. 14. 3rd sg. m. zəllu 3rd sg. f. zəlla 3rd pl. zəllen 2nd sg. m. zəlley 2nd sg. f. zəkki 2nd pl. zəkken 1st sg. zəlli 1st pl. zənna

It is also possible to use the particle lē between the noun and the genitive exponent. 15. baxča lē zənna ‘our garden’ ēne lē zəġār ‘children’s room’ bənt le Kemal ‘Kemal’s daughter’ ši lē akəl ‘something to eat’

In the domain of demonstrative adverbs, for ‘thus’ the expression ša gəze is used. This form probably harks back to simple *kiḏā, found in other qəltu-dialects in various forms (kəḏe in Mardin, kəze ~ kəz in Daragözü). The particle ša, the shortened version of məša is the preposition ‘for’.

The form used for ‘here’ is nihane, whose shortened version ni is usually used in quick speech. It also harks back to Old Arabic hunā. The form for ‘there’ is wane, which most likely harks back to common Anatolian *hawnak, cf. Siirt awnek.

2 Notice also the gemination of the initial consonant of the dative clitic when attached to the existential particle.

FARUK AKKUŞ 36

With respect to interrogative adverbs, there are two words for ‘how’, əštaba, əštarz and šəme. The former is used in contexts where the manner is being questioned, e.g. əštaba məšit wane? ‘how did you go there?’ In this sentence, the means of transportation is being inquired. In other contexts, the word šəme is used, e.g. šəme kənt? ‘how are you?’

The question word for ‘where’ is amma, which can be traced back to the compound form *ayna mōḏa ‘which place’. The Old Arabic form matā is not used for the word ‘when’, instead the form əčax, the reflex of the compound ayš čāx ‘which time’ (< Kurdish čax ‘time’) is used. The following is a list of the commonly used wh-words. 16. ande ‘who, whom’ šəne, əšne ‘what’ atey, fo šəne (lit. ‘on what’) ‘why’ əš habbe ‘how many’ əšqadarī ‘how much’ əš NP ‘which NP’ e.g. əš sənnor adaštu? ‘which cat did you see?’ Copula As in other Anatolian Arabic dialects, in Sason Arabic nominal sentences, a copula is regularly used. Anatolian Arabic dialects vary in their realization of the ‘copula’, its agreement features and order with respect to the predicate.

The form of the ‘copula’ in affirmative and negative sentences in Sason Arabic is illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7 Copula in Sason Arabic

Pronoun Positive Negative

3m.sg ye mū/mou/mow 3f.sg ye mī/mey 3pl nen mennen

Gender agreement is not marked in positive constructions, but only in negatives. This is

different from other qəltu-dialects, which show agreement in gender in affirmative sentences as well. Table 8 illustrates the use of copula across all persons, not just 3rd person forms. All four

dialects use the shortened version of the independent pronoun in the 3rd singular and plural. The difference lies in the form of the ‘copula’ utilized in other persons. Mardin, Siirt and Daragözü use the predicative copula that is identical to the personal pronoun, whereas Sason uses the demonstrative copula with k- after Jastrow (1978: 139).

Table 8

Copula Paradigm

Sason Mardin (Grigore 2007)

Siirt (Jastrow 2006a)

Daragözü (Jastrow 1973)

3rd sg. m. iyu gəbir-ye hūwe gbīr we ūwe ūwe awne hīyu … -ū 3rd sg. f. iya gəbire-ye hīya gbīre ye … īye awne hīya lbayt-ī 3rd pl. iyen gəbir-nen hənne gbār ənne … ənne awne hīyən … -ən 2nd sg. m. ənt gəbir kənt ənt gbīr ənt … ənt awne ənt məni ənt 2nd sg. f. ənte gəbire kənte ənti gbīre ənti … ənti awne ənte … ənte 2nd pl. ənto gəbir kənto ənten gbār ənten … ənten awne ənto … ənte 1st sg. īna gəbir kəntu ana gbīr ana … anā awne nā ḅāš nā 1st pl. nāna gəbir kənna nəḥne gbār nəḥne … nəḥne awne naḥne … naḥne

THE ARABIC DIALECT OF MUTKI-SASON AREAS 37

The paradigm with k- in Sason Arabic is as follows. Table 9

k- Paradigm in Sason

3rd sg. m. iyu kū raxu ‘he is sick’

3rd sg. f. iya kī raxue ‘she is sick’

3rd pl. iyen kənno raxu

2nd sg. m. ənt raxu kənt

2nd sg. f. ənte raxue kənte

2nd pl. ənto raxu kənto

1st sg. īna raxu kəntu

1st pl. nāna raxu kənna

Jastrow (1978) suggests that kū and kī are abbreviated versions of kūwe and kīye, respectively.

Interestingly, while the copula forms -ye and -nen must follow the predicate, the 3rd person singular and plural demonstrative pronouns kū, kī and kənno may only precede the predicate. Therefore, for instance iyu raxu kū is ungrammatical. This suggests that the demonstrative copula with k- came to acquire different distributional and syntactic properties, e.g. they may function as verbal auxiliaries, e.g. kū yamel ‘he is working’, whereas the pronominal copulas cannot. Moreover, the two types of copula differ in their morphophonological properties too. The pronominal copula does not carry (contrastive/exhaustive) stress (Jastrow 2006a, Talay 2001, Lahdo 2009), unlike KWN.

Anatolian dialects differ in the order of the copula with respect to the negation and the predicate. In Sason the order is [predicate+negation+copula], e.g. nihane men-nen ‘they are not here’. In most Anatolian Arabic dialects, including Kinderib. negation and copula precede the predicate, hence [negation+copula+predicate], e.g. mawwe fə-lbayt ‘he is not at home’ (Jastrow 2006a: 91). In Mardin, on the other hand, negation may precede the predicate, while the copula follows it, e.g. mō fə-lbayt-we ‘he is not at home’ (Jastrow 2006a: 92).

In the verbal domain, a distinction is made in the inflection of strong and weak verbs. Table 10 shows the inflection of Form I of the strong verb faqaz ‘to run’ in both perfect and imperfect.

Table 10

Inflection of a strong verb

perfect imperfect 3rd sg. m. faqaz ifqez 3rd sg. f. faqaze təfqez

3rd pl. faqazo ifqəzo 2nd sg. m. faqast təfqez 2nd sg. f. faqaste təfqəze 2nd pl. faqasto təfqəzo 1st sg. faqastu afqez 1st pl. faqazna nəfqez

FARUK AKKUŞ 38

Table 11 illustrates the conjugation of the weak verb addel ‘to make’.

Table 11 Inflection of a weak verb

imperfect

3rd sg. m. yaddel 3rd sg. f. tadde`l 3rd pl. yadlo

2nd sg. m. taddel 2nd sg. f. tadle 2nd pl. tadlo 1st sg. addel 1st pl. naddel

These forms call for several remarks:

i. The inflectional morpheme -tu of the 1st pers. sg. perfect is an important hallmark of the qəltu-dialects,

both Anatolian and Iraqi. ii. In Anatolian and Iraqi dialects, it is common to retain the final -n in 2nd pers. sg. fem., 2nd pers. pl.

and 3rd pers. pl., e.g. təktəbīn ‘you (f) write’, təktəbūn ‘you (pl) write’, yəktəbūn ‘they write’ from Mardin Arabic (Jastrow 2006a). In Sason -n has been dropped and the final [ū] of plural forms is shifted to [o]. The high vowel [ī] is lowered to [e] regularly. Verbal Modificator Sason Arabic has the particle kə-, k-, similar to k- in Hasköy dialect (Talay 2001:84) and the verbal modificator kəl- that Isaksson (2005:187) notes for the Sason area. Talay calls this prefix imperfektive Vergangenheit ‘imperfective past’. The example kə-yayel ‘he was eating/he would eat’ shows that the prefixal particle does really express imperfective past.

In addition to the imperfective verb, in Sason kə- attaches to the perfective verb as well and expresses past perfect meaning as in kə-ayal ‘he had eaten’. This function shows that kə-is not just an imperfective past marker, at least in Sason Arabic (Akkuş, to appear).

Isaksson defines the verbal modificator kəl- in the variety he documented in Xalīle as a particle that “before the perfect marks the perfect tense”, with the example bōwš kəl-štaġal ingilzġa ‘He has spoken much English’. In the example, the perfective form of the verb ‘speak’ is used, hence the expected reading is ‘he had spoken much English’, i.e. past perfect, not present perfect. The fact that it is compatible with the adverb ams ‘yesterday’, as in ams bōš kə-štaġal ingilzǰa ‘he had spoken much English yesterday’, but not with sa ‘now’, it is not possible to say sa bōš kə-štaġal ingilzǰa. This contrast shows that, at least in Mutki-Sason, the meaning is past perfect.

Syntax One of most obvious syntactic changes due to contact relates to marking of indefiniteness in Sason Arabic. In Arabic dialects indefinite NP is unmarked, while the definite NP is marked by the article al-, əl-, il- e.g. ʔaSiide ‘a poem’, l-ʔaSiide ‘the poem’ from Lebanese Arabic. Sason Arabic exhibits the opposite pattern found in Iranian and Turkic languages, similar to the change Uzbekistan Arabic has undergone due to its contact with Uzbek and Tajik (Jastrow 2005). 17. a. baxle b. baxle-ma ‘mule’ mule-a ‘a mule’

THE ARABIC DIALECT OF MUTKI-SASON AREAS 39

Sason Arabic uses the enclitic -ma to mark the indefiniteness of an NP. This indefinite element is unique to Sason group and might hark back to the Old Arabic -maa ‘some’. The following are examples from Kurdish and Turkish that show the markedness of the indefinite NP. 18. mirov > miróvek (Kurdish) the man > a man 19. adam > bir adam (Turkish) the man > a man

This change in the pattern is corroborated by the constructions which show the indefiniteness effect. For instance, existential constructions disallow definite NPs, thus in English one can say There is a bird on the roof, but not There is the bird on the roof. Likewise, in Sason in existential constructions only the form with the enclitic -ma is permitted, e.g. ifi atsūra-ma fo fəstox ‘There is a bird on the roof’. The absence of -ma renders the sentence ungrammatical.

The following examples show the marking of referentiality in Sason. 20. a. naze masag-e atsūra ‘non-referential’ (SVO) ‘Naze caught a bird/birds’ or ‘Naze did bird-catching.’ b. naze atsūra masag-əd-a ‘definite, specific’ (SOV) ‘Naze caught the bird.’ c. naze masag-e atsūra-ma ‘non-specific/indefinite’ (SVO) ‘Naze caught a bird.’ d. naze atsūra-ma masag-əd-a ‘specific/indefinite’ (SOV) ‘Naze caught a certain bird’ or ‘A bird is such that Naze caught it.’

The data in (20) show that word order in Sason makes it obvious whether something has moved

or not. The basic word order in transitive sentences is SVO in Sason, and the position of the object changes depending on its referential properties. In (20)a the bare noun atsūra expresses a reading that comes close to an incorporated reading in that it expresses an activity reading. The NP is non-referential and number-neutral as the distinction between the singular and plural is neutralized with the sentence having the unmarked SVO order. In (20)b, on the other hand, the same bare noun atsūra is interpreted as a definite NP since it occurs in preverbal position (forming the SOV order) and more importantly the predicate is inflected with the object pronoun -a to allow this reading. The form atsūrama in (20)c is translated as an indefinite/nonspecific NP with the indefinite element -ma. The example (20)d shows that what is being marked is not definiteness, but specificity.

Light Verb Constructions Light verb constructions are another domain where the influence of contact is observed. In surrounding languages such as Kurdish and Turkish the form of light verbs is ‘nominal+light verb’, e.g. pacî kirin (kiss do) ‘to kiss’ Kurdish, rapor etmek (report do) ‘to report’ Turkish.

Light verb constructions in Sason are also formed with a nominal and the light verb asi ‘to do’. The nominal part in Sason can be borrowed from Kurdish, e.g. ser asi ‘to watch’, or Turkish as in qazan asi ‘to win’ or might be Arabic, e.g. meraq asi ‘I wonder’. Versteegh (1997) argues that this is ‘a calque’ of Turkish etmek. The data provides support to this argument and also shows that Sason has adopted a head final property.

Expression of Tense/Aspect Sason Arabic does not distinguish between general present, present continuous and future. Therefore, yamel is ambiguous between ‘He works’, ‘He is working’ and ‘He will work.’ The present continuous can also be marked via the verbal auxiliary, e.g. kū yamel ‘he is working’.

The intent is expressed by te- prefixed to the imperfect verb, e.g. te-ičo ‘they shall come’. This prefix is realized as tə- in Mardin and as de- in Siirt dialect.

FARUK AKKUŞ 40

References Akkuş, Faruk (to appear). “Sason Arabic”, Online EALL. Blanc, Haim. 1964. Communal Dialects in Baghdad. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (Harvard Middle

Eastern Monographs X). Grigore, George. 2007. “L'énoncé non verbal dans l'arabe parlé à Mardin”, Romano-Arabica 6-7. 51-62. Isaksson, Bo. 2005. “New Linguistic Data from the Sason Area in Anatolia”, E. Csato, Bo Isaksson, C. Jahani (Eds.), Linguistic

Convergence and Areal Divergence: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. New York: Routledge. 181-190. Jastrow, Otto. 1973. Daragözü, eine arabische Mundart der Kozluk-Sason-Gruppe, Südostanatolien. Grammatik und Texte.

Nürnberg: Hans Carl. Jastrow, Otto. 1978. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen qǝltu/Dialekte. Bd. I: Phonologie und Morphologie (Abhandlungen für

die Kunde des Morgenlandes 43,4). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jastrow, Otto. 2006a. “Anatolian Arabic”, EALL. 87-96. Jastrow, Otto. 2005. “Uzbekistan Arabic: A Language Created by Semitic-Iranian-Turkic Linguistic Convergence”, E. Csato,

Bo Isaksson, C. Jahani (Eds.), Linguistic Convergence and Areal Divergence: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. New York: Routledge. 133-139.

Jastrow, Otto. 2006b. “Arabic Dialects in Turkey – Towards a Comparative Typology”, Workshop on Turkish Dialects Orient Institute, 19-20 November 2004, İstanbul, Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları, 16. 153-164.

Jastrow, Otto. 2007. “Iraqi Arabic”, EALL. 414-424. Lahdo, Ablahad. 2009. The Arabic Dialect of Tillo in the Region of Siirt (South-Eastern Turkey). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 26. Uppsala. Prochazka, Stephan. 2002. Die Arabischen Dialekte der Çukurova (Südtürkei). Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. (Semitica Viva 27). Talay, Shabo. 2001. “Der Arabische Dialekt von Hasköy (Der Khas), Ostanatolien. I. Grammatische Skizze”, Zeitschrift für

arabische Linguistik 40.71-89. Versteegh, Kees. 1997. The Arabic Language. New York City: Columbia University Press. Wittrich, Michaela. 2001. Der arabische Dialekt von Azax. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.